The true belief would
be evolved only on forsaking both the contrary types of faiths. Then one would
believe that these passional feelings are not natural dispositions of the soul
but get evolved in the soul in the form of contrary dispositions due to the
instrumentality of the karmas. On removal of the instrumental cause, 'soul's
true nature remains as it is. Therefore, one should make effort for uprooting
them.

Here the question
arises that "If these attachment, etc. impure dispositions are produced due to
the instrumentality of karmas then how could these impure dispositions be
eliminated in the continued rise of karmas? Therefore, making effort for their
removal is useless.

Answer: In the
accomplishment of one act several causes are required. In them, those causes
which are consciously gathered, should be gathered and on meeting of those
causes which cannot be consciously gathered but are met with on their own, the
act gets accomplished. For example, for the birth of a son the conscious
causes are marriage, etc. and the unconscious cause is the destiny.
Therefore, one who wishes to have a son should consciously get married and
when fortune also favours, the son will be born. Similarly, for uprooting
impure dispositions, the conscious causes are pondering over and ascertaining
the Tattvas and unconscious causes are the subsidence, etc. of Moha (deluding)
karma. Therefore, one who wishes to eliminate one's impure dispositions should
consciously ponder over and ascertain the Tattvas and when the subsidence,
etc. of Moha (deluding) karma takes place, the impure dispositions get
eliminated.

Question: As marriage,
etc. are dependent on destiny, similarly, ascertaining of Tattvas (reality)
too is dependent on Kshayopashama etc. of the karmas, hence making efforts is
useless.

Answer: You have got
Kshayopashama of Jnanavarana karma (knowledge obscuring karma) so you can
ascertain the Tattvas. Therefore, you are advised to make effort of engaging
your knowledge there. The irrational beings do not possess such Kshayopashama;
so, how can they be preached?

Then he further says-
" If fortune favors then only one's Upayoga (attentive consciousness) can get
engrossed there. How would Upayoga be engrossed without such fortune?

Answer: If your
belief be so then you should not make effort for any work anywhere. You
willfully engage yourself in eating-drinking and doing business, etc. and here
you put up the excuse of the destiny. This shows that your interest does not
lie here and only due to pride you are putting up such false excuses.

In this way, such
people should be known as false believers who, in spite of being absorbed in
passional acts, believe, their soul to be free from them.

Further, there are
people who although are having the bondage of karmas and Nokarmas (body,
etc.), yet believe the soul to be free from bondage, but their bondage is
clearly seen. The Jnanavarana, etc. karmas are seen obscuring the knowledge,
etc. and according to their rise, etc., the conditions of the soul are seen
changing through the medium of body. How is then the bondage not there? If
there be no bondage why should then the aspirants of liberation make efforts
for destroying them?

Question: How is then
the soul described in the Shastras as separate from and unbounded and
untouched by karmas and Nokarmas?

Answer: The
relationship are of several kinds. From one identity relationship (
Tadatmya-Sambandha) point of view, the soul is described to be separate from
Karmas and Nokarmas, etc., because the different substances do not become one
by transforming (into one another) and it is from this point of view that the
soul is described as unbounded and untouched. But from the instrumental cause
and effect relationship point of view, bondage the soul assuredly assumes
different forms. Therefore, believing the soul as having no bondage is false
belief.

Someone may argue here
that we do not want to ramble our attention in thoughts of bondage and
liberation because in scripture (Yogasara) it is stated so:

Jayee baddhu mukku
mun.hi so banhiyahi n.ibhantu

Sehaj saroovyu jyee
ramhi to pavhi siv santu (87)

Meaning: "That Jiva
who believes himself to be bonded or liberated he undoubtedly gets bonded".

Our answer to him is-
"There are Jivas who always hold the modificational view point (Paryaya
Drishti), believe only in the bonded- liberated states of the soul but do not
know the intrinsic nature (Dravya-Swabhava) of the soul. Such Jivas are
preached to remember that those, who do not have belief in the intrinsic
nature of the soul and believe only in the bonded -liberated states, are
always bonded. And if bondage- liberation be totally not there then why is it
described that the Jiva gets bonded? And why should one make efforts to
destroy the bondage and get liberated? And why should one exert for self
realization? Therefore, one should believe that from substantial (Dravya-Drishti)
point of view the soul holds one unchanged form and from modificational (Paryaya
Drishti) point of view it assumes different states.

Thus, in various ways
he holds perverse belief due to wrong understanding of Nishchaya-Naya (real
standpoint) only.

In Jina Vani
(omniscient Jina's preachings) different types of descriptions are found from
different angles of different Nayas (standpoints) in different contexts. But
this person (misunderstanding Nischyas-Naya) holds misbelief by accepting as
per his imagination such descriptions which are stated chiefly from realistic
standpoint.

Moreover, in Jina's
preachings, the path of liberation is described to be in the union of right
belief, knowledge and conduct. So, in his belief and knowledge he should hold
the faith and knowledge of seven Tattvas but he does not think of them. In
this his conduct he should make effort for uprooting attachment, etc.
passions but he does not exert for it; and instead he remains contented by
knowing the liberation path to consist in the pure realization of his own soul
only. For practicing the same he internally continuously thinks -"I am pure
like Siddha god, I possess omniscience, etc., I am devoid of Dravya-karmas and
No- karmas, I am full of beatitude, the miseries of birth-death, etc. are not
in me".

So, here we ask him
"If you contemplate in this way from the substantial (Dravya-Drishti) point of
view, then the substance (soul) is a mass of all sorts of pure and impure
modifications, why do you then contemplate the soul as pure only? And if you
contemplate from the modificational (Paryaya-drishti) point of view, then
presently you are having impure modifications; how do you then believe
yourself to be pure?

Further, if you
believe yourself to be pure from the potentiality point of view then you
should believe that "I am capable to become so". Why do you believe "I am
so"? Therefore, contemplating oneself to be in pure form is a fallacy.
Because, if you consider yourself to be like Siddha God then whose is this
mundane state? And if you possess omniscience, etc. (presently) then whose
are these states of sensory knowledge, etc.? And if you consider yourself to
be devoid of Dravya-karma and No-karmas (body, etc.) then why is not the full
manifestation of knowledge, etc. (in you)? And if you are having beatitude
then what else remains to be done? If you do not have the miseries of
birth-death, etc. then why do you experience misery? Therefore, believing the
existence of some other states when other different states are found is
fallacy.

Question: How is then
the discourse of meditating on the pure soul given in the Shastras?

Answer: Purity of soul
is described in Shastras from two angles -the substantial point of view and
the modificational point of view. There, from the substantial point of view
the separateness from other non-self substances and inseparability from one's
own intrinsic attributes (qualities) is termed as purity. And from the
modificational point of view the elimination of alienated (impure)
dispositions is termed as purity. So, in the meditation of soul's purity, the
purity from the substantial point of view is admonished. The same is
described in the exposition of Samayasara: Aish
aivashaishadravyantrharvabhyao bhignatvainopasyaman shudh ityabhilapyatai
This means that the soul is neither passionate (Pramatta) nor dispassionate (Apramatta).
So, this alone is described to be pure being adored to be as separate from the
attributes of all other non-self substances. Further, in Samayasara itself it
is stated so: Samastkakachkraprakriyoteern.nirmalanubhootimatratvachchhaddh
This means- " Such unpolluted realization is pure which is unaffected by
all forms of cases (karakas) like doer (karta), deed (karma), etc. and is one
is one with the indivisible knowledge form of self-soul". Hence, you should
know such meaning of the word "pure". Similarly, one should know the meaning
of the word Kewal (only) to be "That which is separate from the attributes and
modifications of all other non-self things and is purely solely the
self-soul". Similarly, you should grasp the true meanings of other words.

Believing oneself to
be pure and omniscient from modificational standpoint, results in great
perverseness; therefore, one should perceive oneself in both substance and
modification forms. From substance form point of view one should perceive the
one general undivided identity and from the modification form point of view
one should perceive the particular existing state of the self.

By meditating in the
aforesaid manner only one becomes the true believer, because without
perceiving the true nature how can one be called Samyagdrishti (true
believer)?

The Unrestrained
conduct of Nischayaabhasi and Refutation of the same

Further, in the path
of liberation, the faith-knowledge and conduct are to be directed towards
uprooting the feeling of attachment, etc., but his attention is not on this,
instead, emphasizing realization of pure self only, he neglects all other
external means of liberation by believing himself a true believer.

He advocates study of
the Shastras as useless, considers contemplation about substances, etc.,
spiritual stages (Guna-Sthanas), quest-places (Margana-Sthanas) and the three
worlds (universe), etc. as Vikalpa (rambling of Upayoga attention); believes
observing of penance to be useless exercise, treats observance of vows, etc.,
as falling in bondage and knowing the acts of worship, etc. as pious influx,
describes them to be worth giving up; in this way, by discarding all sorts of
external means, he lives indolently.

If studying of
Shastras be useless then for the monks also meditation and study, only these
two, are the main activities. When they are not able to engage their Upayoga
(attention); meditation then they engage it in study only, because no other
act than these two is worthy of their attention. Moreover, by knowing the
intricacies of Tattvas in detail through study of Shastras, the right belief
and knowledge become purer. And so long as Upayoga remains engrossed there,
passions remain feeble and it results in increase of passionlessness. How
could then such activities be believed as useless?